This is nonsensical. Lockdowns aren't a binary system. The countries that did real lockdowns combined with testing, contact tracing and isolation are doing extremely well. Look at how China is doing today. Or Taiwan. Or New Zealand. Or Australia.
If lockdowns that aren't "real" (by the way, saying "real lockdowns" brings the no true Scotsman fallacy to mind) don't work to stop the virus, then why are >95% of the countries in the world doing them, since they still have all the negative side effects but without the benefit?
Because politicians are idiots. They think doing some lockdown-light with 50% of the boxes ticked from scientists recommendations will get 50% of the promised effect. And if they pick the right 50% of boxes, it'll also not inconvenience anyone important...
Even with your definition, my question stands: if stay-at-home orders aren't lockdowns and so don't stop the virus, why are >95% of the countries in the world doing them, since they still have all the negative side effects but without the benefit?
